TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (8) TMI 804
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ned counsel on both sides, main writ petitions are taken up, heard out and are being disposed of. 3. This Court is informed that both these writ petitions arise out of common facts, that subject matter of both writ petitions arise under 'Income Tax Act, 1961' ('IT Act' for brevity) and that only the assessment years are different. While one writ petition pertains to Assessment Year 2012-13, the other writ petition pertains to Assessment Year 2013-14 (hereinafter both assessment years shall be collectively referred to as 'said AYs' for the sake of brevity and clarity). Wherever one of the two said AYs have to be referred to with specificity the same will be referred to as 'AY 2012-13' or 'AY 2013-14' ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he orders of first respondent are dated 28.03.2019. These two orders have been assailed in the instant writ petitions and therefore, they shall be collectively referred to as 'impugned orders'. Wherever, specific reference is required, the order passed by the first respondent arising out of 'assessment proceedings for AY 2012-13' shall be referred to as 'impugned order-I' and the order arising out of 'assessment proceedings for AY 2013-14' shall be referred to as 'impugned order-II'. 5. With regard to impugned order-I, adverting to the same, learned counsel points out that the same has been rejected primarily on the ground of delay. This is articulated in paragraphs 5 and 6 of impugned order-I and th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by learned counsel for writ petitioner that the impugned orders arise out of the same bundle of facts and therefore, it would have been desirable to have both the revision petitions heard out together, so that the core issue or the central theme on which the entire matter turns could have been articulated and projected with clarity and specificity. It was also pointed out that delay was with regard to AY 2012-13 only and there was no delay with regard to AY 2013-14. It is therefore, submitted that it would have been desirable to have condoned the delay with regard to revision arising out of AY 2012-13 by exercise of powers under proviso to Sub-Section (3) of Section 264 of IT Act and thereafter, heard out both the revisions together. 8. I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rs or in other words, impugned order-I and impugned order-II arise out of common factual matrix and only the assessment years are different (obviously numerical values are also different). Therefore, this Court, in the light of the peculiar facts and circumstances of instant case on hand, is of the considered view that the submission of learned counsel for writ petitioner that delay could have been condoned for one assessment year viz., 2012-13 and both matters could have been taken up and heard out on merits deserves to be accepted. 11. However, without prejudice to the main and sheet anchor objections, learned Revenue Counsel submitted as an alternate submission that it would be appropriate to put the writ petitioner on terms. 12. This ....